Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com
Thursday, June 27, 2002

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, overturned a 1954 act of Congress that inserted the phrase "under God" after the phrase "one nation" in the pledge.

The ruling, if allowed to stand, means schoolchildren may no longer recite the pledge, at least in the nine Western states covered by the court.

The Bush administration had argued that the religious content of "one nation under God" is minimal. But the court said that an atheist, non-Jew or non-Christian could see it as an endorsement of monotheism.

"We are certainly considering seeking further review in the matter," said Robert Loeb, a lawyer for the Department of Justice.

Bush: Ruling Is 'Ridiculous'

President Bush, in Canada for a meeting of world leaders, found the ruling "ridiculous," spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

To allow further appeals, the ruling does not take effect for several months. The government could ask the court to reconsider, or turn to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God," the court panel's two-judge "majority" wrote.

Vishnu? Zeus?

"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote.

As Fox News Channel reported Wednesday, this appeals court is the most far-left in the nation. Its recent rulings include inventing a "right" for self-described Rastafarians to smoke marijuana on federal property.

Fox News analyst Sean Hannity lamented Wednesday afternoon that such bizarre rulings are part of Bill Clinton's legacy and have resulted because the likes of Sens. Tom Daschle and Hillary Clinton have obstructed consideration of President Bush's judicial nominees.

Who Named These Judges?

Bill Clinton's appointees do dominate the court and steer its leftist agenda. He named 14 of the 9th Circuit's 24 "active" judges, court documents reveal. However, none of the three judges involved in this decision are Clintonites.

Richard Nixon appointed Goodwin, and Jimmy Carter appointed concurring Judge Stephen Reinhardt. G.H.W. Bush appointed the dissenting justice, Ferdinand F. Fernandez.

In the nation's first ruling of its kind, the appeals court said that when President Dwight Eisenhower signed the 1954 legislation, he wrote that "millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that pupils may not be compelled to say the pledge. But the appeals panel claimed that any classroom pledges, even if students refuse to participate, are unconstitutional, an "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting."

"Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge," the two San Francisco judges fretted.

In a partial dissent, Justice Fernandez said Goodwin and Reinhardt went too far in trying "to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity."

So Long, 'God Bless America'?

"The danger that 'under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or suppress somebody's beliefs is so minuscule as to be de minimis," Fernandez wrote. The 9th Circuit's decision could endanger such patriotic standards as "God Bless America," he noted.

Fernandez thought the majority opinion could be upheld on a purely legal basis but risked crushing the "good sense and principles" that underlie the legal system.

"Judges can accept those results," Fernandez wrote. "But they do so at the price of removing a vestige of awe we all must feel at the immenseness of our universe and our own small place within it, as well as the wonder we must feel at the good fortune of our country."

Public reaction to the controversial ruling was swift.

'Outrage'

Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated: "To simply allow one person who is offended to overturn such a vital piece of our national heritage is an outrage. Most people are offended every year when they make their checks out to the IRS, but that does not give them a constitutional right to sue to abolish the IRS. ...

"The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the most reversed court in the country by the United States Supreme Court. This decision will certainly be overturned. If the Pledge is unconstitutional, then our currency is also called into question."

Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm headquartered in Ann Arbor, Mich., observed, "In the same week that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held the words 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, a federal lawsuit was filed in San Francisco Monday after Christian students across California were forced to pretend they were Muslims for three weeks, praying in the name of Allah the Compassionate the Merciful, chanting Praise to Allah, picking a Muslim name from a list to replace their own name and to stage their own Jihad via a dice game."

On Fox News Channel, even leftist Mara Liasson of National Public Radio called the ruling "outrageous," though she mocked the patriotic fervor swelling on Capitol Hill.

In Washington, Democrats as well as Republicans scrambled to denounce the two California judges and demonstrate support for the Pledge of Allegiance.

House members gathered on the front steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge. Senators interrupted debate on a defense bill to unanimously pass a resolution denouncing the judges' decision.

Daschle: 'Nuts'

"This decision is just nuts," said Senate plurality Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.

"Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves," said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. "What is next? Will the courts now strip 'So help me God' from the pledge taken by new presidents? This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok."

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., called for a constitutional amendment to leave the pledge intact. "There may have been a more senseless, ridiculous decision issued by a court at some time, but I don't remember it," said the White House hopeful.

"This decision will not sit well with the American people," presidential spokesman Fleischer said. "Certainly it does not sit well with the president of the United States."

The Supreme Court and Congress open each session with references to God, and the Declaration of Independence refers to God or the Creator four times, Fleischer noted. "The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision."

Will He Sue to Rename 'Sacramento' and 'San Francisco'?

Sacramento atheist Michael A. Newdow, who said his second-grade daughter was required to recite the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified School District, brought the case.

"I'm an American citizen. I don't like my rights infringed upon by my government," he said. He called the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with."

As for the majority of people who don't agree with him and don't like their rights being infringed, the attitude seems to be "Tough luck."

Is it only a matter of time before some court claims the national motto, "In God We Trust," violates the Constitution?

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Bush Administration
Clinton Scandals
Sen. Hillary Clinton

A product that might interest you:
Have an Opinion About This? Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today